The narrative level of classic Hollywood disaster films usually includes the following elements:
1. A hero with strong willpower and even self-sacrifice—Hackman in "The Adventures of Poseidon" (old version); "Live Fire" Li Jones in "Melting City";
2. In most cases, this man will be blessed by "misfortune": either a good fate or a restoration of family affection - "2012";
3. In the process of fighting against disasters, there are inevitably people ( Usually the supporting role in the disaster relief team, the fat woman in the Poseidon, the ex-wife and husband in 2012) pays the price of life;
4. The climax of the film is also the most critical moment, and a way to overcome the disaster must be found. And this method often causes huge controversy because it is different from common sense - in "Poseidon", it led a few passengers to the bottom of the capsized ship; in "Living Fire and Molten City", the blowing up of the building diverted the magma into the sea.
The savior, love, family, danger, decision-making, and rough calculations, these things actually do not appear in "Water Roaring and Fog City". The only doubtful place may be: son and father, who is the male number one? Perhaps the director intends to let the father and son play the role of the priest played by Gene Hackman in "Poseidon" - the son is responsible for leading a group of people out of danger; This is life. But since the elements of Hollywood disaster films have been exhausted, why does the film still make people feel bad?
The first thing that should be criticized is the special effects. Although everyone knows that disaster films are inseparable from the grand special effects shots of the scene. But that doesn't mean it's a perfunctory shot of just giving a few long shots of London's old and new landmarks like the Big Ben Skyscraper being swallowed up. What fans of well-informed disaster films want to see more than anything else is how a panicked Brit on the run is engulfed in a monstrous flood in all sorts of terrifying ways - akin to Titanic's capsized details, Godzilla ravaging New York city process. It's a pity that such key scenes only appeared at most two or three times in "Water Roaring and Fog City", and the length was short and the scenes were very modest. The audience has no way of realizing the intensity of the flood that was enough to kill "200,000 Londoners in an instant". What's more extreme than the experience is that the scene of "The Flood Peak Stops the Flood Peak" is actually omitted from the climax of the film! If you don't have the ability to express it visually, director, you simply don't want to design this kind of finale of "man conquers nature".
The escape process of the hero and heroine should be the focus of the film's performance, but the result is disappointing. On the one hand, of course, it is still subject to the special effects - the momentum of the water flow, you say that the two of them fall into the Thames River. On the other hand, and more importantly, the director did not know how to create a "periodic crisis" that firmly grasped the audience's psychology in the process of escape (see "Poseidon". The first half: stay in the ship hall or go with the priest Climb to the bottom of the boat; there are two at the end: need to snorkel through flooded passages, open hatches under the double threat of steam and fire). Regardless of the splits and gatherings when rafting in the water, or the dizziness when climbing later, it always feels like a hasty problem, and there is a lack of interaction between the characters, not to mention the in-depth portrayal of characters. If the various problems in special effects can still be attributed to the limitation of technical funds, then the many oversights in the plot and character creation can only show that the director of the film does not have the basic ability to create a successful disaster type film.
View more about Flood reviews
